Catholic Problems in Western Canada

by George Thomas Daly

If such are the views of the Anglican Church, which, among other denominations, has always been considered as most conservative, what may we not expect from the other Churches? And indeed, the reading of addresses made at their different Conferences and General Assemblies, the resolutions passed, and the very atmosphere of these meetings tend to uphold the Church-Union Movement as the realization of unity in Christendom. "The Christian Century" (organ of the Disciples of Christ) says: "It marks out the best path yet that has been described for the attainment of unity. It outlines the goal and bravely takes the first step towards its realization." The New York "Christian Advocate" (Methodist) thinks: "It will mark a definite step toward that fusing of Protestant forces whose absence hitherto, is responsible in large part for the failure of Christianity to make powerful headway among men." As the Presbyterians were the originators of the movement, "The Continent" takes a justifiable pride, in quoting from a contemporary, that: "They are perfectly ready to contemplate a Christian unity that involves the passing away of this particular organism called the Presbyterian Church, finely wrought though it be," and exhorts: "Presbyterians, this sort of reputation is a lot to live up to. But we must not fall from it."

The principles of evolution—principles which we find underlying modern thought—are freely called upon to explain this movement and justify its consequences. Our millennial-minded doctors and preachers are celebrating already the apotheosis of the Universal Church of the future.

And what does the Catholic Church think of Church-Union? What is its point of view on this "Movement" which has now such hold on the Protestant denominations? As the Catholic Church is in itself the largest Christian body, it is but natural to presume that all Christians will be interested in knowing Her views on this vital subject. For is She not that Church which Gladstone himself calls, "the most famous of Christian communions, and the one within which the largest numbers of Christian souls find their spiritual food!" (Gladstone to Acton, Nov., 1869.)

The Catholic Church sees in this movement of Church-Union the complete disintegration of Protestantism and the open condemnation of its fundamental principles. Those who are not of the "Fold" will perhaps resent, but not be astonished at this sweeping statement. We would only ask them to follow our argument and then judge for themselves.

Union—and therefore unity—will not and cannot be the result of the present Inter-Church Movement. This statement involves a question of fact and of right. In facto.—Let us examine first the question of fact. Union, as now promoted, is either "co-operative" or "organic." Co-operative union ignores differences of creed or form of worship; organic union suppresses them or merges them into a neutral mixture.

Co-operative Union,—as a basis of religious unity affecting the religion of the individual, can be at once dismissed. For, what religious action,—i.e., action prompted and guided by a principle, a religious doctrine,—is possible without that principle, that doctrine? Moral action,—and Religion is at the same time the foundation and the highest expression of the moral order,—pre-supposes immutable and recognized principles. "The mental attitude defined on paper as 'undenominational,' Miss M. Fletcher says rightly, has no existence in the human mind. Below all sustained enthusiasms lie strong convictions."—Therefore to ignore the directing principles of their various denominations in a common religious action, and yet to pretend to keep their denominational identity, involves, on the part of the Churches, an absolute impossibility. Because doctrine is the very foundation, the "raison d'être" of intelligent Christian action. Diversity of opinion is bound to bring, in religious matters, diversity of action; for, to be consequent one must act according to his belief. Baptism, for instance, is necessary or not necessary for salvation. On this doctrinal point will necessarily hinge a diversity of action in the mission field alloted to this or to that denomination. The position is quite different when common action is confined to merely social work. But "social service," stripped of all its Christian principles and reduced to pure philanthropy, is not Christianity; it is mere naturalism or neo-paganism.

The great majority of those for whom Christianity is yet a living reality understand the nefarious consequences of "co-operative-union." To protect themselves against this scheme of a perfidious neutrality, they advocate an "organic union." This even is to the fore in the Philadelphia plan of the "Inter-Church World Movement." "The plan of federal union will have this result, that after it shall have been in operation for a term of years, the importance of divisive names and creeds and methods will pass more and more into the dim background of the past and acquire, even in the particular denomination itself, a merely historical value, and the churches then will be ready for, and will demand, a more complete union; so that what was the 'United Churches of Christ in America' can become the 'United Church of Christ in America,' and a real ecclesiastical power, holding and administering ecclesiastical property and funds of such united church."

The promoters of "organic union" do not ignore the differences between creeds, but they are trying to reduce them. This union strikes at the very bed rock of Divine Revelation. For, the suppression of differences, or their limitation to a certain doctrinal minimum, implies a compromise, and a compromise, in matters of truth, is unacceptable. Truth is eternal and therefore does not change. If the Westminister and Augsburg Confessions were true yesterday, why should they not be also true to-day? If the 39 Articles were the rule of Faith for the Anglican Church in the past, why should they be to-day but "definitions of theological opinions of the time of the Reformation," as Anglican Bishop Farthing, of Montreal, recently stated.—"You change . . . therefore you are not true," we may say, with Bossuet, to those Churches.

In jure.—This universal readiness to compromise should not astonish us when we know that the very fundamental principle of the Reformation is "private judgment" in matters of Faith. The divine message of Revelation is to be interpreted as each one sees best. This principle makes, "de jure," every Protestant independent in his religious belief, and opens the door to the most conflicting interpretations of the Divine Message. "The High Church clergyman to-day," writes A. Birrell, "is no theologian, he is an opportunist." Dogma degenerates into religious emotionalism. Doctrine becomes nothing but a "scheme of theological impressions." To tolerate every doctrine is, for a Church, to teach none. Doctrinal chaos, such as we now see outside of the Catholic Church, is the inevitable result of compromise. Winston Churchill's famous novel, "Inside of the Cup," is nothing but the diagnosis of this disintegration which Protestant Churches are now witnessing.

The history of Protestantism is but the history of its changes of religious belief. For "between authority and impressionism in matters of Revelation, there is no alternative." As Christianity is not the product of the human mind, but a Revelation from God, authority,—a divinely constituted infallible and living authority—is a necessity, and the only possible bond of unity.